aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/PCH/cxx-static_assert.cpp:17
-// expected-error@12 {{static_assert failed "N is not 2!"}}
+// expected-error@12 {{static_assert failed due to requirement '1 == 2' "N is
not 2!"}}
T<1> t1; // expected-note {{in instantiation of template class 'T<1>'
requested here}}
----------------
I'm not certain how I feel about now printing the failure condition when
there's an explicit message provided. From what I understand, a fair amount of
code in the wild does `static_assert(some_condition, "some_condition")` because
of older language modes where the message was not optional. I worry we're going
to start seeing a lot of diagnostics like: `static_assert failed due to
requirement '1 == 2' "N == 2"`, which seems a bit low-quality. See
`DFAPacketizer::DFAPacketizer()` in LLVM as an example of something similar.
Given that the user entered a message, do we still want to show the
requirement? Do we feel the same way if the requirement is fairly large?
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55270/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55270
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
